Pathways To
Quality In Higher Education
By
Levi Obijiofor
culled from
Guardian, July 1, 2005
When the rector of the Delta State Polytechnic, Ozoro, mentioned more than a
month ago that his institution would trial a new system of evaluating academic
staff, he was promptly shot down by newspaper editorial comments and opinion
articles riddled with simplistic literary arguments most of which were pedantic
and flawed. Part of the suggested evaluation mechanism would involve students'
assessment of academic staff performance and assessment of heads of departments
by academic staff members. In Nigeria's education system, where transparency and
accountability are as rare as a gold ingot, it is easy to understand the extent
of opposition to this innovative proposal.
What we have experienced over the past decades is that Nigerian universities
and polytechnics that are afraid of change have consistently engaged in the
manufacture of superlative arguments to justify their preference for the status
quo. But, you see, the world is changing and Nigeria cannot remain behind the
rest of the world.
For the sake of quality of higher education, for the sake of the intellectual
growth of Nigeria's university and polytechnic students, tertiary education
institutions in the country cannot and must not continue to justify this
business-as-usual attitude. That kind of attitude is retrogressive. It imperils
the quality of tertiary education. It cripples innovation in teaching and
research. It forces academic and research staff to be redundant and
unaccountable. Above all, it would make Nigerian universities and polytechnics
less competitive than their overseas counterparts.
In most universities in the western world, annual appraisal of academic and
research staff is one of the strategies used to identify and reward high
achieving staff members. It is also used to sustain quality and high standards
in tertiary education. When academic or research staff members are appointed,
they undergo an orientation session in which they are informed (among other
things) about the procedures for performance appraisals, including regulations
and criteria for promotion or yearly salary increment or qualification for
special studies program. The new staff member understands from the first day at
work that his or her ability to be rewarded by the system, as well as his or her
ability to rise within the system is dependent on his or her ability to meet the
established criteria for promotion or salary increment.
Nigerian universities do not like introduction of radical changes,
particularly changes that would improve standards but which would also expose
weaknesses in the system. Academic staff members who have operated unchecked
like lords over the years do not like a system of performance appraisal that
would require them to demonstrate on a yearly basis evidence of innovativeness
in teaching. They would not endorse a system that would require them to account
regularly for their research achievements.
Those academic and research staff members who are comfortable with the status
quo would disapprove of a system that would allow students to evaluate their
teaching practices and course contents on a regular basis. They would not
tolerate also a framework that would require them to produce evidence of
successful competitive research grant applications, as well as publication track
record evidenced by the number of articles published in international
peer-reviewed journals.
What distinguishes leading western universities from their Nigerian
counterparts (in this particular context) is that in Nigeria, there are hardly
any established procedures for performance appraisal of staff members. In many
universities in the western world, there is at least a system of evaluation of
staff performance. And there are standards for determining significant
achievements by each staff member. These are lacking in most Nigerian tertiary
education institutions. And this is why any suggestion to introduce measurable
standards for performance evaluation in Nigerian universities is always viewed
as unnecessary and culturally inappropriate.
We must pity academic and research staff of Nigerian universities and
polytechnics who have to go through an insufferable process of performance
appraisal in an environment in which basic procedures and criteria for promotion
or salary increments are obscure or incomprehensible. In most cases, there are
few (if any) transparent, measurable and fair procedures for performance
evaluation of academic and research staff in these universities and
polytechnics.
Absence of verifiable and measurable performance benchmark makes it very
difficult for victimised academic staff members to launch successful appeals
against their bosses. In a derisive manner, it would seem the existing system
was designed to recognise and promote mediocrity rather than merit. How does a
hardworking academic staff member, for example, successfully appeal against a
vengeful boss who is determined to stunt his/her professional development within
a university system where there are no clear guidelines for performance
evaluation? Engaging in such an exercise in Nigeria is as futile as hitting
one's head against a brick wall.
There are other areas where academic and research staff members in many
western universities are required to demonstrate that they have made significant
contributions in order to justify their application for promotion. These areas
include evidence of external recognition of teaching, supervision of higher
degree course work and research students, services rendered within departments,
the university and to the general public, as well as staff development
activities carried out by the staff member. In this context, when some academic
and research staff of Nigerian universities engage in loose talk about being
overworked and underpaid, it seems to me they are not aware of the workload and
academic commitments of their colleagues in other parts of the world.
Academic and research staff of some overseas universities might be earning
dollars or other foreign currencies but there are mechanisms in the system to
ensure that every dollar they earn is justified. I'm not sure there is a
mechanism in Nigerian universities and polytechnics to check against the
existence of freeloaders. Academic and research staff of Nigerian universities
and polytechnics should take a moment to reflect on the benchmarks for the
yearly appraisal of their overseas colleagues. One area that might be considered
however is that the enabling environment for effective teaching and learning and
research is simply non-existent in Nigerian tertiary education institutions.
Performance appraisal based on the criteria discussed in the preceding
paragraphs is highly recommended for Nigerian universities and polytechnics. But
the universities and polytechnics must be provided with the basic facilities for
teaching and research. This is crucial. While one is not arguing for a wholesale
adoption of the system operating in foreign universities (because of the obvious
gap in the availability of infrastructure), there are aspects of that system
that are irrefutably useful to our national needs, aspirations and
circumstances. The system has more advantages than drawbacks. It would keep
academic staff members -- particularly those who currently use official hours to
engage in marketing of all sorts of wares -- perpetually active and engaged in
the areas of teaching, research, publications and service activities. The system
recognises and promotes commitment to hard work. It will cut down redundant
practices and entrench innovativeness. It does not grant university and
polytechnic teachers the liberty to dump down on their students those course
contents that are dated and irrelevant, especially as the students are given the
opportunity to evaluate their lecturers' teaching practices and the quality of
each course at the end of each semester.
Applications for research grants should be assessed on a range of criteria,
including originality and innovativeness of the proposal, as well as the quality
and strength of the proposed research plans, methods and techniques.
Universities and polytechnics must get rid of the prevailing practice of
awarding research grants to staff members who hail from the same ethnic
background as the head of department or indeed the chairperson of the faculty
research committee. Ethnic affiliation should never take precedence over quality
of research application and merit. Ethnic attachment does not promote a culture
of research. If anything, it undermines research excellence.
Time is long overdue for university vice-chancellors, rectors of
polytechnics, federal education ministry officials and the Nigerian public to
engage in serious discussion about the pedagogy of university and polytechnic
education in Nigeria.
